Does Ken Rockwell Actually Have Any Photos?

<p>Just saw his gallery for the first time and I'm quite familiar with Ken's site.</p>

<p>And I thought I over cranked saturation. OMG! He went all the way to France and came back with that?!</p>

:-)

<p>Well he's not a professional photographer. I'm not even sure he's that good, as a photographer. I've looked at his web site sometimes - it is useful for certain kinds of information - and from what I can tell he just keeps going to the same parts of California and photographing the same neon signs, mountains and bathrooms, only with different cameras. He brags that he only shoots in JPG and always sets the camera to the most vivid mode. He did a D800 review and posted only shots from in-camera JPG basic, high res, at vivid +3 - including one insider a Japanese restaurant where he also missed the white balance, so I tried fixing it in post and it was easy to fix the white balance but it looked terrible because he's used JPG basic.</p>

<p>I do like it that he writes about using cameras the way he actually uses them, which is handholding and taking pictures of kids instead of using a tripod and taking pictures of test charts, and he sometimes tells people not to buy stuff that's too expensive for them. </p>

He is using test charts, when he is testing lenses. And I don't believe he is handholding the camera when he is doing that.

<p>I've never seen a Rockwell shot of a test chart. His lens reviews use shots of his kids, trees behind his house, the fence on his porch, his watch, a rather banal view from a hill that he likes to shoot at night, and bathrooms. I think that those subjects, plus neon signs and a couple of mountains in California, make up most of his photography.</p>

Rockwell's fans might appreciate <A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm">Ken's research into UFOs</A>. He's delved deeply into their questionable medical practices.

<p>That is the web site equivalent of shooting indoors at vivid +3 while missing the white balance.</p>